I want to start this by saying that I haven’t followed the mass of media (mostly outside of Japan) about “The Cove” particularly closely, and nor have I seen the documentary. But I have seen enough to know the broad strokes, and what I wanted to say is more about general ideas anyway, so I will leave the details for someone else.
“The Cove” purportedly is a documentary that explains the traditional killing of dolphins by fishermen in a small town in Japan. It was awarded the Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday in LA, something that was by no means a shock to anyone. The Hollywood set love issues like this, and were always going to vote in droves to ’save the dolphins’.
I’m Australian by birth, and I have often been asked by Japanese people to share my feelings about issues such as those set out in “The Cove”, and also, more commonly, about the related issue of whaling. Australia are of course very vocal in opposition to Japan’s whaling practices, and this has become even more the case under the Rudd government, with the rhetoric escalating more and more still in recent weeks. Whenever I’ve been asked to give my own opinions though, I think people have been surprised to hear them.
I may be branded an ‘animal hater’ with a cold heart of stone for saying this, but I don’t have a problem with whaling or even killing dolphins (for food and other traditional uses), per se. I do have a problem with it if it is done in a particularly cruel manner, which seems to be part of what “The Cove” alleges. Part, but not, if you believe the press, the biggest part.
The problem that I have with all the hysteria surrounding whaling etc. in Japan is that those against the practice move far too quickly and easily into moralistic and ‘we’re better people than you’ rhetoric, which is purely emotional and thus meaningless in terms of coming to an understanding. I am comfortable with morality in a general sense, but I see far too much rhetoric on these issues that centers around whales and dolphins somehow being superior moral animals to other kinds of animals such as pigs, cows, lambs or chickens that people in the West eat with regularity. If this is what they believe, they are welcome to believe it. But it will never be convincing to a society that has a long tradition of taking so much of their meat from the sea. Some even stretch the argument further, to make some kind of equivalence between humans and animals, which I reject. They are free to believe it, but I believe that animals are to be used for food and the needs of humanity, and that humanity are to be stewards, but not absolutist protectors of all animal life on this planet.
I don’t know specifically what arguments “The Cove” makes. But I have read enough to believe that while there may be a great deal of value in the film, there may also be a great deal of propaganda. Telling the difference can be difficult, especially when resorting to emotive means to tell your story. One of the great failings of the anti-whaling debate (and yes, I know that I am conflating two somewhat separate, but in my opinion sufficiently similar issues) is that the anti-whaling side in recent years have taken to means that do their own cause nothing but harm. They resort to attacks on vessels that are conducting whaling activities, and use purely emotive arguments where scientific ones would be vastly more effective.
I don’t know the exact scientific figures for whale populations. Those on the anti-whaling side say that the whales are endangered and need to be protected. But intuitively I know that this is not the case with all whales, only certain varieties. The Japanese scientists claim that they are operating in a responsible manner, which does not endanger the whale population (I know that I am using ‘whale’ in the general form here, though there are many different species). Who is right? This is the debate that needs to be had, and it seems at least to me that there has not been a true consensus of opinion one way or the other. Maybe many in the international community believe that there has been, but I would like to see a lot more discussion of these facts as opposed to the emotional outbursts and propaganda that we see so often characterizing the debate.
If Japan are able to continue their whaling activities without endangering the existence of the whales that they catch or ’study’, then they should be allowed to continue to do so without molestation. If they are truly acting in an irresponsible manner and endangering the sustainability of species, then interested parties around the world should continue to exert pressure on the issue. Perhaps the true answer lies somewhere in between, in some gray area, in which case more research would be needed – and less hysterical posturing.
|
|




